Today, we celebrate the life and mourn the loss of a dear old friend. He was born at the dawn of history. He saw the creation of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. He was there for the birth of Harry, Ron and Hermione and the death of the poets from “Dead Poet’s Society.” Unfortunately, he has now passed. Today, we mourn the tragic murder of the English language. The culprit is none other than the Internet.
The Internet has annihilated English, leaving mountains of evidence in its wake. Log onto Facebook, and the homepage is little more than uncapitalized “I’s,” run-on sentences with no end in sight and a total of four vowels, most of which lie in the constant stream of acronyms for every kind of laughter imaginable (LOL, LMAO, LMFAO, ROFL, ROFLMAO, ROFLMFAO, and my favorite, LQTM).
Granted, I have a bias as a writer. Topics regarding language agitate me more than those who could care less about sculpting words into a form so poetic the strongest man in the world would swoon (see? Told you I’m a writer). Yes, I use proper grammar, punctuation and spelling in everything I put online. I even capitalize my hashtags on Twitter. Anything posted on the Internet stays there forever, so I figure something that eternally endures should sound as smart as possible. Intelligence is determined by not merely the content of an argument but how it is delivered. Fourteen exclamation points and a finger glued to the Caps Lock key does not scream, “Listen to all my wise ideas.”
I’m not asking for complete and total reform, just a little respect toward the language that has given us so much. I can handle hashtags. I kind of like LOL. but if u tlk lik thiz, u g2g.
That guy • Oct 28, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Whoever “anonymaus” is, should go out for opinions staff… They basically just wrote a counter column on claire’s argument and presented their idea pretty well… The funny part was they were using very proper english the entire time hahaha
Anonymouse • Oct 24, 2011 at 10:22 pm
I notice you didn’t address my more pressing point, involving the nature of language and its evolution on the Internet, and instead focused on the elements that may have hurt poor Missus Salzman’s feelings. And, to be fair, those elements were plenty.But not every comment on an article needs to be about how perfect and fantastic the writing is (though that tends to be the case on this website). There are negative opinions out there, and they should be expressed just as much as the positive ones- even more, in fact. It’s not a game of insults. It’s criticism. Harshly worded criticism, yes, but how are we to improve without a critique every now and again?
And about the writing talent of Miss Salzman- she is talented. She can spin a sentence, inject humor into some particularly dire subjects, and be an all-around wordsmith. The problem is, so can the rest of the Call staff- there’s a reason why the Call has won so many awards, and it’s not just the elegant layout. By attempting to place Miss Salzman on this pedestal of writing, with us mere mortals unfit to even consider commenting negatively on her work, it makes me wonder what stake you have in the matter. Are you approaching this as an unbiased outsider? Or as a friend, who sees something insulting and rude posted underneath their friend’s article? A friend, who jumps to her aid, defending her against this unhelpful stranger? A friend, who maybe can’t quite see past that friendship- who can’t see the cracks in the pedestal?
I’ve read the Call before, many times- which is why I hold it to standards. Standards that I felt this article didn’t reach. I posted my opinion. It’s not much, but it’s all I can do. It’s all either of us can do.
Also, to the Call editors- thanks for fixing the “vowels” problem.
Also (also), the “misspelling” of the name was intentional- it was a play on the word anonymous and the German word for mouse (maus). I’ve anglicized it in this post Just For You.
Megan Cobb • Oct 19, 2011 at 8:32 am
Although “Anonymaus” seems very well-versed, I think your comment is nothing but rude and unnecessary. If someone wants to voice an opinion about the texting abbreviations and how they find them unnecessary, then who are you to tell her she can’t? I challenge you to find one of Claire’s articles and tell me she’s not one of the best writers for opinions the call has to offer. This article is supposed to be three hundred words, no more, no less. It would be pointless to write their features in that space. It’s room for opinions and short stories. Please, if you’re going to insult the call and the writers on it, take a look at some of their other more in-depth articles and then see how you feel.
Also, you misspelled anonymous in your name.
anonymous • Oct 13, 2011 at 10:27 am
I agree with the above statement. I think the call is just writing to “write”, there really is no meaning to this article. It makes more sense to type something shorter and gets the same point across(on the internet).
Anonymaus • Oct 12, 2011 at 11:41 pm
You know what this article is? This is an old-man article. This monument to journalistic integrity reads like an old man, standing on his front porch, yelling and shaking his cane at the “uppity young’ns” who walk by. Next we’ll be seeing a strongly worded diatribe about saggy pants and smartphones and that dang “Jazz” music that has all the kids up and hoppin’.
Language evolves, and language has many branches. As your neatly worded (if somewhat inaccurate, since I don’t remember that many Sumerians speaking English at the “dawn of history”) assumes, English has remained static. But that’s just not true- even 20 years ago, people spoke differently than they do now. And 520 years ago, English would sound like a foreign language. What you’re critiquing is slang- slang is not a new concept, and certainly not the death of the language, as your (i’m hoping hyperbolic) title suggests. Instead, internet slang is an offshoot of proper English, a branch, if you’ll indulge my generic metaphor. Just because you don’t like said branch doesn’t give you the right to waste 300 words decrying it and proclaiming the end of the tree as a whole. Sure, there are some people who are just too lazy to form a proper sentence. But there are lazy talkers too. And the vast majority of people use internet lingo because it forms a common language- 99 percent of the time, you just want to get your thoughts across, be it an elegant paragraph or a few choice terms. Slang helps facilitate that. And by attacking it, you’re only hurting English and your own credibility- hoisting your own petard, to mangle a particularly archaic proverb.
Also, you misspelled “vowels” in the second paragraph.